Advertisements

AE Public BB

Post by NoName
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 24 2014,13:57) Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 24 2014,09:28)The causation model has a “Design” form and the software can be tweaked in a way that makes the user the Designer. But since this represents all the behavioral levels on down to the “behavior of matter” it's simply a way to get around the technological problem of atoms on up modeling of an entire planet currently being impossible, in which case “behavioral cause” then “intelligent cause” would create the virtual plants and animals including humans.This paragraph makes no sense whatsoever. I know this is like "Dog Bites Man," but it provides a good example of how muddled thinking results in muddled writing.Insofar as sense can be extracted from it, it blows two of Gary's claims out of the water.First, that intelligence "emerges". This bit of Dadaist prose asserts that it's intelligence all the way down and all the way up.Second, it reinforces the view that Gary's effluent is circular and ultimately question begging. Gary "explains" intelligence by insisting that it is somehow 'already there', at every level from 'the behavior of matter' to the level of organisms.

Gary never tires of repeatedly shooting himself in the foot with these sorts of absurd and self-refuting claims.'Sewn together wrong.'

Post by Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 24 2014,09:28)The causation model has a “Design” form and the software can be tweaked in a way that makes the user the Designer. But since this represents all the behavioral levels on down to the “behavior of matter” it's simply a way to get around the technological problem of atoms on up modeling of an entire planet currently being impossible, in which case “behavioral cause” then “intelligent cause” would create the virtual plants and animals including humans.This paragraph makes no sense whatsoever. I know this is like "Dog Bites Man," but it provides a good example of how muddled thinking results in muddled writing.

Post by N.Wells
I'd like to re-iterate my view of that algorithm. It's usable for modelling artificial selection. It would also be okay for a model of natural selection that was designed to allow users to tweak natural selection pressures or set minimum fitness levels before being allowed to reproduce, just to let the users see how populations respond to different levels of selection.

However, it's not particularly good for modelling real-world evolutionary progressions, because the real world keeps changing the context in which evolution is occurring: new predators, competitors, and/or potential prey species move in, other predators / competitors / prey species go extinct or move away; the climate keeps changing; sea levels rise or fall, frequencies of natural hazards change; continents split apart, and so on and so forth. Therefore, in the real world there is no such thing as a "desired level of fitness". Possibly even worse, there is no such thing as a target in evolution. Every individual has the de facto goal of reproducing and successfully raising offspring (more technically, ensuring and even enhancing the propagation of their genes over succeeding generations). However, there is no set target, such as "we have to develop long necks" or "big brains" or "become a whale". There is simply the de facto goal of whatever works well enough, for the moment, because any genome that fails to reproduce itself disappears.

Post by GaryGaulin
I just looked up “genetic algorithm desired fitness” and found a good amount of academic information, including at Google Scholar where the phrase “Desired Properties” was also found.

Maybe I should just agree this GA step that goes by several names is not “in nature” then wait to see where the discussion goes from here. In my opinion the generalization (within limits) has some usefulness, even though it is can also be used as a misleading oversimplification.

I also need to add:The causation model has a “Design” form and the software can be tweaked in a way that makes the user the Designer. But since this represents all the behavioral levels on down to the “behavior of matter” it's simply a way to get around the technological problem of atoms on up modeling of an entire planet currently being impossible, in which case “behavioral cause” then “intelligent cause” would create the virtual plants and animals including humans.

Post by Glen Davidson
Quote (fnxtr @ April 24 2014,00:12) Quote (Lou FCD @ April 23 2014,18:12)I don't think a guy who believes in an Invisible Haploid Zombie who Lives in the Sky and Watches Us Masturbate really should involve "neurodegenerative pathologies" in the discussion.

Post by fnxtr
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 23 2014,18:12)I don't think a guy who believes in an Invisible Haploid Zombie who Lives in the Sky and Watches Us Masturbate really should involve "neurodegenerative pathologies" in the discussion.

Post by Richardthughes
Quote (keiths @ April 23 2014,15:33)JWTruthInLove, a Jehovah's Witness, offers his take on God:Quote @Coyne:All the questions are pretty easy to answer.Quote Why would the Abrahamic God, all-loving and all-powerful, allow natural evils to torment and kill people?There’s no evidence that god is all-loving or all-powerful. And he probably likes to torture and kill things. Maybe that’s one of the reasons he designed us.Quote Why can’t he keep kids from getting cancer?Why should he??Quote How did the Holocaust fit into God’s scheme?Perfectly.Quote Why, if God wants us to know and accept him so much, does he hide himself from humanity?He only hides from atheists. The other billions of religionists are too blind to see the truth of god.Quote Why would an omnibenevolent God consign sinners to an eternity of horrible torment for crimes that don’t warrant that?Hell is a trinitarian invention. There’s no evidence, that god designed any hell.Quote Why is God in the Old Testament such a jerk, toying with people for his amusement, ordering genocides in which women and children are killed en masse, and allowing she-bears to kill a pack of kids just for making fun of a prophet’s baldness?I don’t know. Maybe he was born a jerk.

Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 22 2014,23:02) Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 21 2014,07:20) Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 20 2014,17:56)Here is a typical flow chart for a (now under discussion) Genetic Algorithm. It's as you can see really not complicated at all:

Somewhere way upstream you were informed of the wrongness of this flowchart. There is no "desired fitness" in nature, although that criterion does exist in your "model." You determine what the "desired fitness" is and code accordingly. That's one sure sign that your program doesn't model reality.You and others were given the opportunity to provide any other flowchart you wanted. I'm not surprised that you're now being a scumbag over it.I found the thread where this typical flowchart was recommended to me, and discussed:

Post by Lou FCD
Quote (timothya @ April 23 2014,02:22)This one from "jw777" has to be a Poe, surely:Quote Strict Materialism as Pornography Addiction

As pointed out in the Dawkins post, I’m currently working on a thesis that proposes atheism is one of a class of neurodegenerative pathologies, hall-marked by substantial downregulation and possible total ischemia of dopaminergic receptors and opiate receptors.

Initial mechanism proposals and meta-analyses are promising. Trying to find a proper control is the elusive variable. My instinct tells me this will sweep discussions like Coyne’s completely aside in the future.I can think of at least one control.I don't thing a guy who believes in an Invisible Haploid Zombie who Lives in the Sky and Watches Us Masturbate really should involve "neurodegenerative pathologies" in the discussion.

Post by NoName
The plot is the same as it ever was -- as long as you conflate an explanation of intelligence with an explanation of evolution, specifically the evolution of species and higher-order classifications of living things, you are assuming your conclusion.Which is a hardly the first logical fallacy you've committed, but it lies at the foundation of your efforts.No further refutation of your effluent is required than to point this out, regardless of the adequacy, or alleged lack thereof, of any other explanation that does not base itself on a fallacy.

Post by Texas Teach
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 23 2014,15:56) Quote (N.Wells @ April 23 2014,07:19) Quote .....where it currently looks like he's being trashed for mentioning that Uranium was not formed on planet Earth. No it doesn't. Joe is so clueless that he misunderstands the arguments raised against his position and does not realize why he is wrong (and you are not following along either). He countercharges that his opponents don't think that uranium formed off the earth, but no one in that thread has taken that position. When doing uranium dating, it is irrelevant when and where the uranium formed: it is only relevant when the containing crystal formed and whether the crystal might contain some lead from earlier decays. After that, we check whether the crystal predates the rock that it is in, or postdates it (whether it is an inclusion from something earlier, or resulted from later metamorphism), or simply formed when the rock formed, but those are resolved by examining fabrics visible in thin sections, examining growth bands in the crystals, checking conditions of formation for that crystal versus the other crystals in the rock, and so forth.The average person is not going to wade through a long complicated scientific argument going on somewhere else.

From the information that was given, it easily looks like the disagreement is with what Joe was quoted as saying about Uranium not having been formed on/in planet Earth.

And by the way, I once tried setting up one of my HP5988A mass spectrometers (that when tuned just right shows isotope peaks) for dating minerals from the tracksite. After getting into all the prep-work that takes a team of specialists to get right (but by myself take 50+ years and tons of money) I gave up on that idea. It quickly became much cheaper and easier to have that done by a lab.

I very much understand how complex the many many required procedures actually are. The problem is all those who do not. And it looked like you're an expert on that topic, so I suggested you should add what you said to me to Joe's thread.Translation from the Gaulinese: I totally made myself look stupid, falling into the same mistake as Joe. Now my only hope to save face is to complain that other people should have given a long explanation of why Joe is a moron who thinks all scientists are bigger morons to deflect attention from my own idiocy. Perhaps inventing a bunch of uneducated lurkers that are confused by this remote corner of the Internet.

Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (N.Wells @ April 23 2014,07:19) Quote .....where it currently looks like he's being trashed for mentioning that Uranium was not formed on planet Earth. No it doesn't. Joe is so clueless that he misunderstands the arguments raised against his position and does not realize why he is wrong (and you are not following along either). He countercharges that his opponents don't think that uranium formed off the earth, but no one in that thread has taken that position. When doing uranium dating, it is irrelevant when and where the uranium formed: it is only relevant when the containing crystal formed and whether the crystal might contain some lead from earlier decays. After that, we check whether the crystal predates the rock that it is in, or postdates it (whether it is an inclusion from something earlier, or resulted from later metamorphism), or simply formed when the rock formed, but those are resolved by examining fabrics visible in thin sections, examining growth bands in the crystals, checking conditions of formation for that crystal versus the other crystals in the rock, and so forth.The average person is not going to wade through a long complicated scientific argument going on somewhere else.

From the information that was given, it easily looks like the disagreement is with what Joe was quoted as saying about Uranium not having been formed on/in planet Earth.

And by the way, I once tried setting up one of my HP5988A mass spectrometers (that when tuned just right shows isotope peaks) for dating minerals from the tracksite. After getting into all the prep-work that takes a team of specialists to get right (but by myself take 50+ years and tons of money) I gave up on that idea. It quickly became much cheaper and easier to have that done by a lab.

I very much understand how complex the many many required procedures actually are. The problem is all those who do not. And it looked like you're an expert on that topic, so I suggested you should add what you said to me to Joe's thread.

Post by Lou FCD
Thanks, Alby! The Gnatcatcher took a lot of patience, as did the Least Tern. The terns are fast, erratic fliers, too, and had the add difficulty of being just post-sunrise on a cloudy morning. I was pretty happy to get anything at all of them.

Post by Bob O'H
Quote (keiths @ April 20 2014,23:53)Byers (who else?):Quote Sounds great but Alabama too fat away from toronto.bY the way this YEC speculates that Thor, the Germanic god, is actually a memory of a real man who was the first leader of the Germans according to genesis.i think Gomer is the first german and torgamah , his son, was a leader of a division in the german peoples and lived long and when died they turned his memory into a God. it lasted easily 2500 years.Think about it when thursday comes around.According to the source material I've read, Odin was the leader. Thor was just a big guy with a boomerang for a hammer.

RSS Syndication

Antievolutionists Say the Darndest Things

Antievolutionists often express outrage over alleged incivility from those who oppose their efforts to evade the establishment clause of the First Amendment. But they have no difficulty in dishing out the abuse themselves. Here is a sample from the Invidious Comparisons thread that documents egregious behavior on the part of the religious antievolution advocates.

IDC advocate Phillip E. Johnson:

Gould’s uncomfortable situation reminds me of the self-created predicament of Mikhail Gorbachev in the last years of the Soviet Empire. Gorbachev recognized that something had gone wrong with the Communist system, but thought that the system itself could be preserved if it was reformed. His democratic friends warned him that the Marxist fundamentalists would inevitably turn against him, but he was unwilling to endanger his position in the ruling elite by following his own logic to its necessary conclusion. Gould, like Gorbachev, deserves immense credit for bringing glasnost to a closed society of dogmatists. And, like Gorbachev, he lives on as a sad reminder of what happens to those who lack the nerve to make a clean break with a dying theory.